Fetal Pain

The state of Nebraska has added a (seemingly) new phrase to the abortion debate, namely “fetal pain.” The gist of the view is that abortions after twenty weeks should not be allowed on the grounds that the fetus might feel what is happening to it.

While it is not known exactly when a fetus can feel pain, the Journal of the American Medical Association asserts that it is unlikely that the fetus feels pain prior to twenty eight weeks. The question of when a fetus has sufficient neurological development that would allow it to experience pain would certainly seem to be an empirical matter. Of course, the situation can be made more complicated by bringing in metaphysical concerns about when the fetus has a mind that can actually experience pain and suffer from such pain (there might be an important distinction between feeling pain and suffering from pain).

Determining when the fetus can feel and suffer from such pain does seem important. After all, many moral arguments are based on the capacity of beings to experience pain. For example, stock arguments in the moral debate over the treatment of animals rest on the fact that many of the ways we treat animals (such as how we raise them as food) causes them pain and suffering.

If the pain and suffering of animals matters morally, then it would certainly seem that the pain and suffering of fetuses would also matter morally. In fact, many of the arguments for not harming or mistreating animals based on their capacity to feel pain could be modified slightly to serve as arguments against harming fetuses that can feel pain.

Of course, this means that objections raised against pain/suffering based arguments in the case of animals could often be modified for use against the pain/suffering based arguments regarding fetuses.

On a logically irrelevant note, this could mean that folks who are pro-choice but against animal suffering might find their own arguments against mistreating animals re-purposed to argue against abortions. Likewise, folks who are anti-abortion but argue for the moral acceptability of (mis)using animals might find their arguments for allowing animal suffering to be re-purposed and used against their anti-abortion views.

Getting back to the main discussion , it does seem that pain and suffering are morally relevant. Intuitively, this makes sense. To steal an approach from Hume, simply think of your own pain and suffering and see if you can regard these as good things. It is also easy enough to take advantage of numerous existing arguments for pain and suffering having negative moral value (Mill is the obvious choice here). Naturally, there are also good arguments against this, but it hardly seem foolish to consider that inflicting pain and suffering tends to be morally wrong.

If this is granted, then abortions that cause pain and suffering to the fetus would certainly seem to have a morally negative element well worth considering. However, this would hardly be a morally decisive point. After all, the mere fact that something causes pain and suffering does not automatically make it wrong or unacceptable. One reason for this is that pain and suffering are typically taken as having relative rather than absolute weight. In other words, pain and suffering on the part of one party is usually weighed against positive value or against the pain and suffering of another party. For example, when arguing about animal testing in the context of medicine, the pain of the animals is typically matched against the gain to be had from the medicine.

In the case of abortion, the pain and suffering of the fetus would be weighed against other factors, such as the pain and suffering of the woman. This is, of course, old moral ground that has been debated extensively. In many cases the suffering the woman (or girl) would undergo would far outweigh the pain and suffering of the fetus, thus allowing the abortion to occur. If someone argued that the fetus has an absolute right not to suffer or feel pain, then the obvious counter is to inquire why the same would not apply to the woman as well and why such a clash between absolutes should be settled in favor of the fetus. After all, the burden of proof would seem to rest on those who claim an unborn and unfinished being has a greater moral status than a person.

I suspect that the main result of the introduction of “fetal pain” into the legal battle will not be a significant change in the ethical debate. Rather, the main impact will be that a (seemingly) new rhetorical tool (or weapon, depending on your view) is now available.

Like this:

Reader Interactions

Comments

I think that it is self-evident that the unborn have a greater moral status than any female who would willfully choose to murder her own child.

That’s the issue with this sort of false argument; it’s predicated upon one of two opposing unproven, and likely unprovable postulates – that the fetus is or is not a person.

If the fetus is a person, than even Osama bin Laden has a higher moral status than the females who kill their own children. If the fetus isn’t a person, then all the arguments that the pro-abortion crowd, especially the feministas, make are accurate.

It doesn’t seem to be self-evident in the usual meaning of the phrase. In general, claims such as “triangles have three sides” are taken as self-evident while such a moral claim seems to lack the usual hallmarks of self-evidence. Of course, there are philosophers who do claim that moral claims are self-evident. Naturally, they usually disagree about which claims have this quality.

Whether a fetus is a person or not does seem provable. After all, you just apply the definition and see if it sticks. There is, of course, the problem of getting the definition down. Also, the moral debate over abortion can be run without even bringing in the notion of person hood. For example, it can be done on the basis of utility.

I wouldn’t give Obama Bin Laden higher moral status than women who have abortions. Even if abortion is taken to be murder, Bin Laden is accountable for a multitude of murders, thus making him worse. Unless, of course, numbers do not matter.

Even if the fetus is not a person, this does not make abortion correct nor does it entail that the “pro-abortion crowd” is right. Moral arguments can and have been given that do not depend on person hood.

All depends on who you ask. Philosophers have been addressing it for a very long time. My own inclination is that being a person requires self-awareness, the capacity for higher thought, and all the usual stuff. Of course, I also argue that non-persons can have moral status as well (animals count).

If we taught our children the utter importance of birth control and how to avoid unwanted pregnancies, we wouldn’t have to try and make all these distinctions. Plus, it would save a whole lot of trauma for all concerned. It’s really a shame that people don’t realize this more. The “issue” of abortion has no definitive answer, it only has arguments for and against. No one WANTS to get pregnant and have an abortion. The real problem is the unwanted pregnancy. Abortion is just one outcome of that real problem. If people REALLY cared, they would do all they could to educate people on how not to become pregnant if they don’t want to be.

Yes, birth control and effective sex education would help reduce the number of abortions. Interesting, folks who are anti-abortion often (but not always) tend to be against birth control, sex ed and providing support for woman who elect to not have an abortion. Interesting, pro-choice people tend to be for these things.

Although I could be wrong, I would tend to agree with that in general. And, it’s a shame, too. It seems that it could be a very real potential for “both” sides in the abortion debate to agree, if even for “selfish” reasons. People who are pro-life could help bring about drastic reductions in the number of abortions if they put their efforts into education to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Everyone else should be able agree that an unwanted pregnancy is often a traumatic and even life-changing situation no matter what the outcome; and preventing this whenever possible is a very worthwhile goal.

Usually, though, I think people would rather shout at each other than work together for a common goal, even if because of differing motivations.

“Yes, birth control and effective sex education would help reduce the number of abortions. Interesting, folks who are anti-abortion often (but not always) tend to be against birth control…” How many? A majority? Where are the numbers? I have always been against abortion and never against birth control. They logically go together.

Technically, all Catholics are supposed to be against both. In any case, my point is not one of numbers but rather that it is interesting that people hold to both views. This, however, can be based on a coherent moral principle.

I think that the pain of the fetus is worth considering, but pain is not a trumping factor. As you point out, the choice of the woman might well trump the fetus’ pain (assuming that it does feel pain during the abortion). Interestingly, if pain trumped choice, then we would all have to give up meat (unless we switched to a painless system).

In that case, the fetal pain can be weighed against the pain of the mother and also the potential pain of the child in question. Forcing a woman to have the baby to avoid fetal pain would seem to be easily countered by pointing to the greater pain that would be caused by this. Unless, of course, only the fetus matters (which seems to be what some pro-life folks seem to think).

You stated that the AMA says that a fetus most likely would feel pain at 28 weeks. That means the fetus would be 7 months and most likely be viable outside the mother’s womb. In which case I’d be opposed unless the mother’s life was in danger.

Obama was abandoned by both of his parents in his childhood. That was very unfortunate. are you saying he should have been aborted? Better yet, how many children that had ‘unfortunate circumstances’ when they were young wish they had been aborted? I was dirt poor with a single parent when I was a child. I had a wonderful childhood. Your thought train is the same used by the progressives in the early 20th century when they pushed abortion. Look up Sanger.

Oddly, America heard that argument before, eehard. Many people said the same thing about a previous legal enterprise involving the “non-persons” of that day and age. They were against the practice, but wouldn’t make the choice for any other person, it being a legal option.

As for Judith Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion” and the arguments therein – if the unborn child is considered a person, then ALL of her argument falls apart.

Thomson’s argument is that she does not have to be a synbiotic host to anything in her body. I’ll say it again, I don’t care for abortion as a form of birth control but we live in the era of instant gratification with no regard for the unintended consequences.

My understanding is that a fetus is not considered a person until it becomes viable outside the mother’s womb.

The fetus could be a person prior to viability, but this depends on what the term means. By John Locke’s definition, the fetus would not be a person (it lacks reason and reflection, etc.). Interestingly, for St. Augustine the fetus would initially be on par with a plant, then an animal. It would not be a man until it became rational.

Of course, non-persons can have moral status. For example, animals are generally not people, yet they would seem to count morally.

The argument is no if a woman has the “right to choose”. It is as to if the fetus is a human and if it is, is abortion murder. We do not have the choice to murder except under the “competing harms” argument, which states that someone is innocent of a crime if they canhow that by committing the crime they prevented a greater crime ie death of the mother.

Even if a fetus cannot feel pain, it doesn’t change the argument. If I ensured that someone’s head was numb from novacain injection, I still could not decapitate them ad hoc without being charged with murder.

The fetus is biologically human. Whether abortion is murder or not depends on how all the key terms are defined. The context also matters as well.

While murder is, by definition, always wrong (murder is wrongful killing) there are many cases in which killing humans is allowed. For example, killing in war is regarded as acceptable by most. The same arguments used to justify killing in war (protecting one’s interests, for example) can be used to justify abortions.

While the pain is a relevant factor, you are right that the lack of pain need not make the action acceptable. After all, a painless killing is still killing.

Would this be the proper time to begin analyzing the claim that the fetus is a “human being”? Specifically, what are the qualities that distinguish a human from other life forms? Does a fetus possess all of those qualities? Does the potential mother possess all of those qualities?

Biologically, the fetus is human. But being human does not provide protection against being killed or harmed. After all, humans are killed and harmed quite often. Terrorists are human, for example, as are enemy soldiers.

Biologically the fetal stage begins in the eighth week. Roe lengthened the woman’s absolute right to “opt out” of pregnancy–to use a current phrase–to the twelfth week. Generally, after that point the court wisely decided to limit the procedure to cases where the woman’s health may be in jeopardy.

The phrase “Baby-killer” doesn’t by definition refer to the killing of anything younger than a fetus. Roe states that “killing” of the “baby” can only happen where maternal health is endangered in the second trimester and in the third trimester where the health of the mother is involved.

South Dakota’s stated battleground, for example, would have been the first trimester, where the “baby” is not a “baby” at all, but an embryo. And not, by biological definition or your definition or mine, human. If the period between the eighth and twelfth week is what this whole argument is about, I say cede that period to the pro-life group.

Like “test tube meat” solving the moral dilemma of eating meat, I predict that it is only a matter of time before an artificial womb will make it possible for a woman to terminate her pregnancy without taking a life.